Friday, June 22, 2007
Today (barely!) is the feat of St. Thomas More. (Thanks to MOJ-friend John Breen for the reminder.) Here is Pope John Paul II's motu proprio proclaiming St. Thomas to be the patron of politicians and statesmen.
And, I can't resist observing, tomorrow is the feast of St. Thomas Garnet (no, I'm not kidding), which also happens to be the birthday of one Thomas William Garnett, of South Bend, Indiana.
I would like to thank Prof. Steve Shiffrin for his thoughtful post of June 20 responding to my earlier remarks regarding Bishop Tobin’s Rhode Island Catholic May 31 article entitled My R.S.V.P. to Rudy Giuliani. Steve suggests disagreement with me on some matters. His comments also indicate that I may have been too brief and should have fleshed out more wholly my perspective on the Tobin-Lynn question. Of course, one of the problems that is characteristic of most web log postings is that they are not designed to study in depth any matter or issue. But, Steve does appear to agree with me on one important point. At the end of his post he states that government actions against religious groups (i.e., “the spectre of government bribing leaders of religious organizations to stay out of politics… even when their conscience dictates otherwise”) present problems. To quote a line from the old English cases, I am of the same opinion. As I see the situation, these problems can include using the tax code as a means of pressuring the proper exercise of the Constitutional guarantees pertaining to the free exercise of religion and freedom of expression.
What is presently at issue in the matter on which I previously wrote is the allegation by Barry Lynn and Americans United for Separation of Church and State that Bishop Tobin violated Section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code when he, Tobin, stated in his Rhode Island Catholic article that he would never defend a candidate who supports legalized abortion. Under this provision of the Internal Revenue Code, tax exempt organizations are forbidden from publishing or distributing statements in “any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” The Rev. Lynn and Americans United are renewing the argument that was essentially made by Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc. (ARM) against the Catholic Church in the 1980s. ARM sued the U.S. Bishops Conference and the U.S. Treasury that the latter should revoke the Church’s tax exempt status because of the Church’s public teaching on abortion and the political position this teaching conveyed. In this lawsuit, the courts did not disturb the IRS’s findings that the Church was in compliance with Section 501(c)(3). I suggest that the current circumstances surrounding the concerns of Americans United for Separation of Church and State are no different.
The IRS has determined that the Church’s teaching on the abortion issue does not violate the tax code. As one leader of the Church, Bishop Tobin has the responsibility in his teaching office to continue this fundamental instruction. Some may argue that while there are Constitutional protections upon which the Church and Bishop Tobin rely in this regard, there are also statutory provisions, such as the Internal Revenue Code, that must be honored as well. But when there is perceived tension between the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and a particular statute, the primary way of avoiding any conflict between these two legal authorities is to read the statute in a way that is consistent with the applicable Constitutional provisions. In this case, Section 501(c)(3) is to be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the First Amendment.
But if this is not possible, it may be argued that the statute which remains in conflict with the Constitution is, in fact, unconstitutional. Steve suggests this possibility in his posting.
In the meantime, I think it is helpful to keep in mind that Americans United for Separation of Church and State is another tax exempt organization that relies on the protection of Section 501(c)(3). While Americans United for Separation asserts that “we are careful to make sure we are always in compliance [with the requirements of 501(c)(3)]… [by not] making any statements supporting or opposing any candidate or party…” its actions indicate otherwise. For example, the website of Americans United for Separation has a menu where the reader can click on the voting records of elected officials including state officials and Members of Congress. By selecting the entry on a particular official, the reader can see if that office holder voted “with us” or “against us.” While this information provided by Americans United for Separation is nuanced, it nevertheless indicates that this tax exempt organization is presenting a position on and the suitability of this office holder and future candidate by indicating whether he or she is “with us” or “against us.” Perhaps Americans United for Separation would disagree with my analysis. But since a part of their mission is to educate the public “about religious freedom issues and organize local chapters all over the country,” their actions speak more clearly than their words. The Rev. Barry Lynn and the organization of which he is executive director understandably want to exercise their Constitutional rights. This is essentially the position of the NAACP, another tax exempt organization, took when President Julian Bond delivered a speech in July of 2004 that made implications about candidates in the then upcoming presidential election. Has Bishop Tobin done anything different? No. He has exercised his Constitutional liberties to protect the unborn and to teach about the evils of abortion and to agree with Mr. Giuliani that abortion is “morally wrong.” RJA sj
From today's op-ed by journalist Melinda Henneberger:
Over 18 months, I traveled to 20 states listening to women of all ages, races, tax brackets and points of view speak at length on the issues they care about heading into ’08. They convinced me that the conventional wisdom was wrong about the last presidential contest, that Democrats did not lose support among women because “security moms” saw President Bush as the better protector against terrorism. What first-time defectors mentioned most often was abortion. . . .
Many of them, Catholic women in particular, are liberal, deep-in-their-heart Democrats who support social spending, who opposed the war from the start and who cross their arms over their chests reflexively when they say the word “Republican.” Some could fairly be described as desperate to find a way home. And if the party they’d prefer doesn’t send a car for them, with a really polite driver, it will have only itself to blame.
The title that the editors chose overstates what the op-ed actually claims, which is only that the Democrats should respect pro-lifers and should give some on things like partial-birth abortion bans (and maybe some other regulations? -- it's unclear) because of the widespread public support for them. But what the author found about the importance of abortion as an issue for the women to whom she talked looks interesting. The book based on these interviews is available here.
Tom
Dear Professor Shiffrin,
I recently read your post on same-sex relations on Mirror of Justice, and was
puzzled by the following passages:
"I am, of course, aware that the Vatican teaches otherwise. I do not agree with
positions the Vatican has taken on many issues involving sexuality, women, and
marriage.
"I should say once again that when I think of the Church, I do not think of the
Vatican. I think of Jesus, the Communion of Saints, the People of God. I pray
for the Pope and the Bishops (for the difficulty of their task and in
particular that they will be better servants of a pilgrim church, as we all
do), but I also pray on many issues that the Church will not be lead by them."
I do not understand how you can affirm your assent to certain doctrines taught
by the Pope and the bishops--like the doctrines concerning Jesus and the
Communion of Saints--and yet affirm your dissent from other doctrines issuing
from the same authority. Either the Pope and the bishops possess a valid
teaching authority or they do not. If they don't, then it makes no sense to
believe anything they say touching faith and morals. If they do, then it makes
no sense to deny anything they say touching faith and morals. Within that
sphere, they have either plenary authority or none at all, precisely because
that authority comes from God or does not. If it comes from God, then we
ignore it or deny it at our peril; if it does not come from God, then it is
objectively irrelevant.
Your position seems to me analogous to saying that one accepts the authority of
the scientific method for all areas of scientific inquiry except those
pertaining to chemistry and planetary science; there one prefers the teachings
of alchemy and Ptolemaic cosmology, respectively.
If one is going to reject the authority of the hierarchy or of the scientific
method, that's perfectly within one's rights. But, at least as a matter of
logic, it only makes sense to do it whole hog.
Sincerely,
Nicholas E. Salazar
Whether Richard McCormick and others were right in thinking that the Magisterium
is entitled to less (or no) deference when it addresses questions
regarding women and sexuality (taking lack of experience, lack of consultation,
the silencing of theologians, and the failure to take the experience of others
into account), they were not making a logical mistake.
Assuming God speaks on some subjects through the Bishops does not necessitate
the view that God speaks on all subjects that it claims to have authority over.
To assume otherwise is to assume that God has gotten it wrong in the past.
The Vatican has spoken on many matters of morals in a non-infallible way,
and the the extent to which Catholics are bound on those matters
has been much debated on this site.
Of course, those Catholics who follow their conscience on moral matters
do so at their peril. But it is sometimes forgotten that those who follow
the teachings of the Vatican do so at their peril.
Consider those who endorsed and implemented religious persecution
in the past, for example.
M.Z. Forrest has a post at Vox Nova discussing corporatism, distributism, and freedom. And, in the comments section, there are some suggested policy / legal reforms - including "abolishing LLCs" -- that, M.Z.F. believes, flow from the analysis. On the other hand, there's Steve Bainbridge's paper, "Catholic Social Thought and the Corporation."
In this essay in Policy Review, Mary Eberstadt explores a theory about "How the West Really Lost God":
[W]hat secularization theory assumes is that religious belief comes ontologically first for people and that it goes on to determine or shape other things they do -- including such elemental personal decisions as whether they marry and have children or not.10 Implied here is a striking, albeit widely assumed, view of how one social phenenomenon powers another: that religious believers are more likely to produce families because religious belief somehow comes first.
And therein lies a real defect with the conventional story line about how and why religion collapsed in Western Europe. For what has not been explained, but rather assumed throughout that chain of argument, is why the causal relationship between belief and practice should always run that way instead of the other, at least some of the time. It is as if recent intellectual history had lined up all the right puzzle pieces -- modernity, belief and disbelief, technology, shrinking and absent families -- only to press them together in a way that looks whole from a distance but leaves something critical out.
This essay is a preliminary attempt to supply that missing piece. It moves the human family from the periphery to the center of this debate over secularization -- and not as a theoretical exercise, but rather because compelling empirical evidence suggests an alternative account of what Nietzsche's madman really saw in the "tombs" (read, the churches and cathedrals) of Europe.
In brief, it is not only possible but highly plausible that many Western European Christians did not just stop having children and families because they became secular. At least some of the time, the record suggests, they also became secular because they stopped having children and families. If this way of augmenting the conventional explanation for the collapse of faith in Europe is correct, then certain things, including some radical things, follow from it.
UPDATE: On this matter, as on so many others, Lisa Schiltz was way ahead of me. Here's her June 9 post on the same essay. Thanks to Elizabeth Brown for the tip.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Over at Vox Nova, Morning's Minion writes:
The Court has already issued a dozen rulings this term that limit damages and make it harder for people to sue corporations. The court is seen as tilting more toward business than even the Rehnquist court.
As for all those good pro-life people who cheered when Bush appointed Roberts and Alito to the Court-- I recommend the song that ended the Sopranos franchise: Don't Stop Believing...
I don't understand the complaint here. Is the suggestion that, because Justices Roberts and Alito are declining to endorse plaintiffs' proposed interpretations of federal laws, their pro-life bona fides are somehow in question? I'm not sure how much -- as a Catholic -- I should worry about the Supreme Court's willingness to "limit damages and make it harder for people to sue corporations." Again, I assume we're talking about cases where the Court is interpreting acts of Congress that, the Court thinks, "limit damages and make it harder for people to sue corporations." The suggestion that a willingness to sustain plaintiffs' lawsuits, or uphold huge damages awards, is a marker of fidelity to Catholicism, seems pretty unappealing; don't we need to know *something* about the merits of the disputes?
Catholic new urbanist and MOJ-friend Philip Bess is blogging over at "Right Reason" on the subject, "Why Architecture Matters." Click here and here. The posts are thorough and thoughtful, and too rich to blurb. Nutshell: Joel Kotkin says that cities should be "sacred, safe, and busy." But what does it mean, really, for a city (today) to be "sacred"? (And, we lawyers might ask, what work does law do in supporting, or undermining, the "sacred"?)
Thanks to Amy Welborn for the tip.
On June 7, John Carr, the head of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops Department of Social Development and World Peace, testified before the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works regarding the Catholic "bishops' position on climate change." Although the testimony does not break much new ground over the 2001 bishops' statement on the issue, it does have some interesting bits, including a statement that, although it still hedges a little bit, comes closer than the 2001 document (or at least my hazy memory of that document) to a straightforward acknowledgment that climate change is happening. Here are a few highlights:
The bishops accept the growing consensus on climate change represented by the International Panel on Climate Change, but also recognize continuing debate and some uncertainties about the speed and severity of climate change. However, it is not wise or useful to either minimize or exaggerate the uncertainties and challenges we face.
...Prudence requires wise action to address problems that will most likely only grow in magnitude and consequences. Prudence is not simply about avoiding impulsive action, picking the predictable course or avoiding risks, but it can also require taking bold action weighing available policy alternative and moral goods and taking considered and decisive stops before the problems grow worse.
We believe solidarity also requires that the United States lead the way in addressing this issue and in addressing the disproportionate burdens of poorer countries and vulnerable people.
Those who contributed least to climate change will be affected the most; those who face the greatest threats will likely bear the greatest burdens and have the least capacity to cope or escape. We should come together to focus more on protecting the poor than on protecting ourselves and promoting narrow agendas.
With the heading "Cardinal Martino Opens DMV at Holy See," the blog Catholic Ramblings observes a "failure of catechesis":
The Decalogue, and the embodiment of the Word in Jesus Christ, are the sum of the moral law. The Church in its Catechism and in its Tradition have already provided and continue to provide moral teachings needed to form solid consciences, and for this purpose, the Catechism, for example, outlines the various implications and demands of each particular Commandment. Yet as individuals endowed with free will, we are charged with exercising a well-formed conscience in particular situations, since no human document or body of documents could provide clear answers for every human contingiency. And besides, certainly the “rules of the road” or the “Ten Commandments for Motorists” are implied in the moral law already: be charitable to others, do not kill or recklessly endanger another, do not flagrantly risk the lives of your passengers, do not become enraged. I suppose my point simply put is that the same charitable task could have been more seriously accomplished by reminding the faithful of the application of the moral law–of the Decalogue and the Great Commandment–to all our activities, including our driving. This would have provided the faithful with assurance that our daily choices are morally significant and that the Church has a genuine interest in them, while simultaneously avoiding the needlessly flippant and even pedantic form of Martino’s document.
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
